Nicole's Comment on the New Yorker Cover Featuring the Obamas on Thursday, Jul 17 at 01:41 AM Posted on the Charlie Rose Show Comment Board:
Charlie: While it was entertaining to watch you and Mr. Remnick enjoy one another, it may have been useful to ask him the following question: Why did the magazine decide to shine "the harsh light of racism and xenophobia" onto questionable depictions of the Obamas' physical bodies?
If the New Yorker was so committed to satirizing THESE DAMAGING IDEAS, why not depict THOSE WHO THINK THEM?
Wouldn't it have been interesting (and more useful) to put the images in question in bubbles over the heads of "hardworking Americans" as they watched the Obamas capture the delegates necessary for the nomination last month. Then, juxtapose more accurate images of the Obamas (as well dressed, polished, educated, earnest young professionals) with the images on your cover that inflame fears.
But, that's right. It's easier to hide behind "the satire card" and say "oh, don't be so sensitive" than to depict white discomfort mapped onto white bodies on the magazine's cover.
For the record, I am an African American female, a New Yorker subscriber, a native of Chicago's South Side now a professor in Florida. Yet, it is wearying to listen to white men tell me how I SHOULD consume such depictions so as not to disturb their "innocent" fun.
The magazine cover and Rose interview are reminders of who CONTINUES to control image construction and interpretation in the American media...sigh...
---Dr. Nicole D. Anderson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment